Skoči na glavni sadržaj

Izvorni znanstveni članak

The Judicial and Extra-Judicial Practice of Conflict Resolution in Thirteenth-Century Hungary

Tomáš Gábriš ; Katedra právnych dejín, Právnická fakulta, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Bratislava, Slovačka


Puni tekst: hrvatski pdf 460 Kb

str. 1-30

preuzimanja: 651

citiraj


Sažetak

The judicial settlement of disputes was not the only, and probably also not the most common, way of solving disputes in Árpádian Hungary. Despite the fact that in the cases of amicable settlement no written report on settlement was necessarily drawn up, still there is plenty of evidence of alternative means of dispute resolution, more than of judicial conflict resolution. The problem is, however, the conceptual distinction between judicial decision-making on
the one hand and arbitration and mediation on the other. The distinction between judicial and extra-judicial dispute resolution is very vague. Disputes decided before arbitrators were essentially the same as those solved by judges. On the other hand, judges also decided cases that would probably not be eligible to end up before an arbitrator, either because they were directed against the king, or because they harmed the public order, or because they had an impact that was wider than local. Otherwise, research into primary sources makes it clear that the task of judges was, as in the case of an arbitrator or mediator, only to allow for a settlement between the parties, and only where necessary to impose a binding decision by virtue of their official competence. The final decision did not differ much from the settlement reached by the parties on their own or through an intermediary (arbitrator or mediator). Judges, just like arbitrators, invoked no legal standards (such as the laws of the first kings of Hungary) in the proceedings, and their decisions in most cases involved only granting financial compensation in favour of one of the parties, without imposing any other punishment. Their only particularity is the rarely reported use of power to impose death
sentences, enslavement and some publicly humiliating sentences, such as the cutting of the hair, which seem not to be applicable within the framework of an amicable out-of-court settlement. The principal feature of conflict resolution in Árpádian Hungary, a feature that was common both to judicial and extra-judicial dispute resolution, was thus the participation of a third, essentially unbiased person.
From the many sources that we examined, it appears that the aim of the dispute resolution in this period was, more than finding the real truth, to settle the case to the mutual satisfaction
of the litigants. Therefore, in many proceedings, the search for truth might be given up for the sake of reconciliation. Thus the means of evidence could in the contemporary context play a completely different role. Neither the evidence in the form of written documents nor the testimony of parties or witnesses could have had the power of absolute evidence, since all the evidence was often followed by an oath or other type of ordeal. Such a relativisation of rational evidence and its isolation by a transfer into the world of the supernatural could under some specific circumstances be an intentional act aiming to leave the notions of truth and lies behind, and rather to resolve the latent issue between the parties. The “evidence” thus did not serve to reveal the truth, but rather served only as a means of establishing a compromise between the litigants with the aim of reconciliation of the parties and restoration of peace and justice, rather than mere punishment of a disputing party.

Ključne riječi

conflict resolution; judge; arbitration; mediation; evidence; ordeal

Hrčak ID:

94729

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/94729

Datum izdavanja:

28.12.2012.

Podaci na drugim jezicima: hrvatski

Posjeta: 1.483 *